Critics of the report state that it focuses solely on pragmatic solutions to the large number of significant problems that plague the program instead of seriously trying to produce a coherent vision for the future of the program. The response given by the report's authors is even though the critics raise a valid point, to do anything at all, the program requires government finding, and in order to get such funding, the program first needs to regain a reputation for competence.
We are looking for an answer that supports the critics of the report.
If we take answer choice (B) to be true, then in order to get rid of the serious problems that the program is having, it must have a coherent vision for its future. Thus, the critics are valid in explaining that focusing solely on pragmatic solutions to the large number of significant problems as opposed to trying to produce a coherent vision for the future of the program is not the best thing to do to solve the programs problems.
Hope that helps! Please let us know if you have any other questions.
Ashley-TienJune 19, 2018
Doesn't B just repeat what was already stated in the passage?
AnitaJune 19, 2018
@Ashley-Tien B doesn't so much repeat what was in the passage so much as that it shows that the report's authors are overlooking the fact that the critics' point - that there needs to be a vision for the future - is necessary for them to get the end goal they want. The authors want funding, so they say they need to focus on the solution to the problems, but they're ignoring that to get the funding they still need to do what the critics asked and create a vision for the future. Does that help?
